Save the system

Wednesday, 29 Sep, 2010

DID the frenzy of anticipation and apprehension on Monday signify nothing? One answer would be: yes. After all, the government has survived and the Supreme Court has held off on turning the screws. But something did happen on Monday, and it did not help strengthen the democratic project in any way. Little is factually known about what transpired during the meeting between the president, the prime minister and the army chief on Monday, but its significance cannot be overlooked. The two most powerful civilian political figures were in attendance, the supreme commander of the armed forces and the chief executive of the country, but, in truth, all eyes were on the third figure: the army chief. That itself tells a sorry tale about how poorly the civilian government, and other civilian institutions, have managed the transition to democracy. Must every civilian institution always act with the fear of the army bogeyman at the back of its mind? Perhaps not. But civilian institutions simply cannot afford to forget that the infighting which weakens them strengthens undemocratic forces in the country.

Perhaps no side needs to introspect more than the present government. The latest PPP government has confirmed what many long suspected, that the Achilles’ heel of the party is an inability to deliver on governance. Much of the talk about the implementation/ non-implementation/ selective implementation of court judgments would have disappeared if the government had shown some semblance of understanding the structural and long-standing problems that confront the country and had begun to address them. But where commitment of purpose was required, the country got empty rhetoric. Even now, when some of the political ‘crisis’ could dissipate were some of the worst offenders among the outsize federal cabinet to be jettisoned, the government chooses to rule by inaction. Almost certainly, the abject governance record of the present civilian leadership has helped foment the atmosphere of crisis.

However, the onus of shoring up democracy in the country does not fall on the government alone. What is viewed by some as the selectivism of the judicial arm of the state is also a reality that has played its part in the ongoing crisis. This much ought to be obvious: anything that leads the army to intervene in politics, however discreetly, is not good for democracy. The army needs to focus on the security challenges that have disrupted lives across the country, not be sucked into the vortex of politics by squabbling civilian institutions. Unsettlingly, it was not very difficult to tell who among the three pictured at the presidency on Monday appeared the most comfortable.

Children at risk

Wednesday, 29 Sep, 2010

IN the event of a disaster, groups that are already disadvantaged, such as women and children, become even more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. In the post-flood situation, apart from the victims’ immediate needs such as shelter, food and medical attention, the protection of children is also a major concern. According to Unicef, out of the 20 million or so people affected by the floods, over half are children. A report by the agency on the floods’ effect on children says that “children have been or are at risk of being separated from their families, they are at risk of abuse … and have witnessed death and destruction”. There are also reports that boys from flood-affected families are being lured into prostitution in some parts.

In the aftermath of natural calamities worldwide we have witnessed elements taking advantage of children. After the January earthquake in Haiti some American missionaries were convicted of illegally transporting a busload of Haitian children into the Dominican Republic without any paperwork. In Pakistan, after the 2005 earthquake the adoption of children was banned to prevent the risk of child abductions. Though people may be well-intentioned in wanting to take children away from the scene of tragedy, it doesn’t justify ignoring due process. In the current scenario the trafficking and abuse of children cannot be ignored as the state grapples with the post-flood situation. In present conditions, protecting the welfare and rights of minors is more important than ever as the chances of their exploitation are far greater considering that the whole social structure in many parts of the country has collapsed. Vigilance is key in this regard.

The state and society — especially rights organisations — must play a proactive role in ensuring the safety of children so that they are kept from harm. It is also important that a child protection law is passed and implemented at the federal level. Presently, such a law only exists in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. It is essential that the federal government passes a law that can protect children from all forms of abuse both in times of crises and otherwise.

Nato’s stance

Wednesday, 29 Sep, 2010

AFTER initially defending the recent aerial attacks inside Pakistan, Nato appeared to change its stance on Monday evening. More than 50 people have been killed in the three recent air strikes. The Isaf spokesman had earlier invoked the right of self-defence but after Pakistan sent a strongly worded protest reminding the military alliance that its mandate for operations ended at the Afghanistan border, the security force reportedly informed Pakistani commanders that it was trying to ensure that helicopters did not cross into Pakistani territory. That the US-led military alliance appears to have realised its mistake is encouraging at a number of levels. First, the reversal regarding the legitimacy of including Pakistani territory in operations focused on Afghanistan will act as a deterrent to future temptations to resort to the ‘rules of hot pursuit’. As Pakistan has reminded Nato, no such agreement exists and such incursions can only be termed a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty.

Secondly, while it is true that the militants recognise no borders and the terrain is uncertain, it is important for allies to respect each other’s mandate and territory. The only hope for effectively breaking the militant-terrorist nexus lies in close cooperation and coordination among the various stakeholders, including the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is doubly important since Pakistan’s forces are themselves engaged in fighting the militants. Incursions such as these are counter-productive to the aims of both Nato and Pakistan as they deepen public resentment regarding cooperation with the United States. The matter is similar to the controversy surrounding drone attacks inside Pakistan: though the issue has quietened down to some extent, it proved deeply divisive in terms of public opinion.

Thirdly, there has been no dispute that the targeted fighters belonged mainly to the Haqqani network, which shows further recognition that the militancy problem is not Afghanistan’s alone.